Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, Jun 25, 2013.
I'm sorry, but were you in a coma in 2008? You might want to ask somebody what happened.
I would vote the Hildabeast over Bolton. My clear choice is Paul. He would be dynamite for the nation. The fact the GOP even considers Bolton shows that they do not get it
Mine as well!
I like Bolton, but Paul is the man that will represent the Pubs in the 2016 elections.
Why? No other president has been required to show his death certificate before becoming president.
Rand Paul. Yes, please nominate him! I think he would lock up Kentucky for ya'll and his kookiness will hardly be an issue across the deep south.
None of the things you espoused as part of libertarian ideals are reflected by the Libertarian platform.
Till the money runs out... Then what?
"I'd prefer not to deal with this issue at all—it's like shearing a pig—too much squeaking, too little wool," Putin said during a news conference in Turku, Finland, as quoted by the Wall Street Journal.
Were we being laughed at by Putin in 2008?
I responded to your comments on a president leaving behind a big mess and the obvious conclusion was that you must have been in a coma at least in 2008 and possibly longer. I see brain function still has not fully returned, so I'm guessing the latter.
Obviously, I was talking about the Iran part(s). And, of course, I didn't address the Hillary part. Which has not platform affiliation.
Doesn't take a smart libertarian like myself to know Obama hates Israel. That isn't on any platform either.
Somewhat contradictory to hand "special privilege" to Israel while dismissing Iran by saying let the "other rag heads" deal with them, no?
After all, a huge percentage of our foreign defense budget goes to Israel, most of the top Libertarian thinkers wish to take that away. Most Libertarians also believe we have no right to tell another sovereign nation what technologies they can or cannot pursue.
If one connects these dots there is a very real possibility that Iran develops nuclear weaponry (which, frankly I agree with the Libertarians here, it is not our business) and finds itself in direct conflict not with "rag heads," but with Israel.
I mean, I'd see "hey, fend for yourself" as indicative of "hate" as "here's a bunch of money to both you and your enemies." (which has been going on for decades now).
As for Clinton, if you're a Libertarian than she and Bolton or no more than two peas in a pod: career politicians part and parcel of the pay-for-play American political system. Neither should be even incrementally more appealing.
That is, for the incrementally small portion of the American population that is Libertarian, but over represented on TH.
Why would one expect to be able to extract the makeup of a small forum on the Web to the entirety of the United States?
That said, John Bolton, Hillary Clinton? No thanks. I don't see the difference. And I don't even call myself a Libertarian!
Could you possibly read more into what I said?
I talk of no special privileges to Israel
Perfectly inline with the party on Iran.
Israel can take care of themselves. Perfectly fine with ending all aid to every country. Period.
You obviously hate Israel then. :joecool:
Did someone say that? That's outrageous!
I'm sorry you can't see any difference between Bolton and Clinton and can't begin to understand what your problem might be in that regard.
Sure you did. I guess we have to have our presidents cater to them? Like them? What difference does Israel make? What difference would it make who likes, hates or is indifferent toward them?
That's just silly.
Bolton is way more appealing....with a gun to my head... As he is obviously no libertarian.
I'll bet dollars to donuts he won't be a tax raiser on producers.
Which is appealing